Tim Lambert, little child of the Outback, is desperate for me to post a comment on his website denying that I set up a sock puppet. For one, he’d sell his mother’s soul to increase his declining blog rankings by one iota. For another, he’d succeed in making me break my vow not to post on his silly little site. So he continues to say I’ve made no denial since I’ve made none on Deltoid — a rather egocentric view of the world to say the least. What’s most interesting is the paucity of comments he’s gotten on his “still no denial” charge and even the lack of interest shown by those who did comment. In other words, if I did set up a sock puppet it appears nobody but Lambert and his human sockpuppet John (”Duh, whaddya want me to say, Tim?”) Fleck seems to care. Alternatively, they may not believe Lambert. Might be a reason for that, since he’s played these games before and set up his own sock puppets.

I mean, that just reeks honesty.

So again and for the last time I will deny ON THIS SITE but not on Lambert’s that I have never posted under any name but my own, his ability to slap together a name with my IP address on a graphic notwithstanding.

Those double negatives can be tricky.

*Fumento’s actual words.

Check out this rather pathetic comment left by Fumento on another blog.

Not that any of this should shade our opinions of his writing, of course. That would be the ad hominem fallacy. Just because someone repeatedly reveals himself to be a dumbass bully doesn’t mean he isn’t also a dazzling writer with brilliant ideas. We wouldn’t want to pre-judge.

“On January 13, 2006, Eamon Javers revealed in BusinessWeek Online that Fumento had written opinion columns promoting the biotechnology firm Monsanto without disclosing a $60,000 grant his employer, the Hudson Institute had received from the company in 1999. Scripps Howard News Service, Fumento’s distributor since 2003, dropped his column in consequence.”

Feel free to divide the assessment of shilling between yourself and Hudson.

Please explain in your own words how I was either a shill or fraud, whereupon I will respond and shred them. It’s so easy to make an accusation, so much more difficult to back it up.

How effective has his life-long work been? Campaigns to delay regulation save corporations billions, though they don’t stop it permanently. He’s probably helped to cost hundreds or thousands of people their lives, though.

Requiring all pundits/columnists to have no financial interests in the subject of their commentary seems unduly restrictive, as this will dramatically reduce the exposure of many experts to the public, simply on the basis that the experts have worked for private interests, and not based upon good evidence that the experts routinely offer unreasonably biased analysis.

Moreover, by requiring disclosure, the expert may become more sensitive to his own biases, and more interested in avoiding the appearance of shilling for a private interest. Indeed, with disclosure the private interest has an incentive for the expert to avoid the appearance of mere shilling as well.